Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Monroe Doctrine Centennial half dollar/archive1

Any chance of linking Half dollar (United States coin)?

"portraits of former presidents James Monroe and John Quincy Adams, and issued in commemoration of" - A rewording to avoid x and y, and z?

is given credit for -> is credited with

I'm not sure. I think "given credit for" conveys the doubtful situation better, as there is an implication in that phrase that the recipient may not be deserving that doesn't come through with "credited with".

• I'd actually argue using "credited with" is already implying that it is cast in doubt. Compare "Raja Ali Haji wrote Syair Abdul Muluk" and "Raja Ali Haji is credit with writing Syair Abdul Muluk" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Duplication of Monroe Doctrine in the lede (I've removed). The tool is not showing any others

ex-presidents - is this kosher? I don't think it's common in formal use (disrespectful, my high school teacher said)

As I use "former presidents" in close proximity, seemed the obvious synonym. Open to suggestions. Don't want to get bogged down at a minor point in the article. "two fellow Virginians" would work but might confuse people who don't realize where Madison was from (I think Jefferson is well known).

• Hmm... founding fathers? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I've avoided the issue.

Any chance of alt texts? (not a requirement, but worth doing)

I don't object to other people doing them, but people kvetch about mine so I prefer to stay away from the topic.

a number of instances of onscreen sexual explicitness - does the source mention any particularly egregious ones?

Cregan says they were "lurid". No one is specific. I'm scenting that all of these descriptions have a common source. A lot of the scholarship on commemoratives is pretty appalling, as I've found out with the Oregon Trail piece, where most of it is just dead wrong.

Los Angeles Clearing House - Worth a redlink?

Low value. What they were "clearing" was checks, and the time when there were large volumes of checks to be cleared has passed. I just don't think it's something that anyone's gonna ever write about with this specificity.

Worth linking House of Representatives and Senate?

My test is, is anyone likely to break off reading to go find out about the House of Representatives? I don't think so, but if you feel strongly about it ...

How shallow is shallow?

I suppose there is a technical statistic on how high the coin is from the field to the highest point on it, but I don't know that the Mint has ever published such things as they are not very useful for the lay collector. The Mint would have to know because the rim has to be higher to protect the design. You can see for yourself that it is a very flat-looking design.

• Alright, makes sense. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

for fair visitors - I know what you mean, but someone could misread this as "good looking" or "kind" visitors.

A link to an article about coin quality in numismatics would be nice (perhaps link M-60)

Essentially a solid article, and most of what I've left here is just nitpicking. Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. If I haven't commented, I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)